MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' dialogue in exchange for England organizing the 2018 World Cup
If the United Kingdom had consented to sit and negotiate the Falkland Islands, Argentina would have given its vote for England to organize the 2018 World Cup. The long standing rumor was confirmed by the son of Argentina's deceased powerful boss of the country's football, Julio Humberto Grondona. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhat nonsense!
Sep 04th, 2017 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse +2Don't cry for Argentina, just laugh at them. Time to drop the mythical Malvinas sovereignty claim.
Sep 04th, 2017 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse +1Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina (1 page):
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Do you think Scotland, N.Ireland or Wales...even England would have included the Falklands in negotiations for a World Cup deal...pure fantasy ! That would have had to have the blessing of the UK Parliament. Likely ? ...not a snowballs chance in Hell !
Sep 04th, 2017 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse +3Just goes to show that Argentina was not interested in who actually deserved the World Cup (Russia ???) and also shows how Argentines regard bribery in one form or another as the norm
Sep 04th, 2017 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4@ darragh
Sep 04th, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3In fairness this is FIFA we're talking about, they don't exactly have the finest reputation on corruption. More like they could be scaled down and used as a corkscrew they're that crooked.
Well, thank heavens for that! No talks with Argentina and no world cup. Win-win to my mind.
Sep 04th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What a load of “ bollocks ” these Argies say. If it was the case it would have been mentioned at the time, just keeping the myth alive.
Sep 04th, 2017 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Two words for that story; 'Shite', and 'shite'.
Sep 04th, 2017 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Old story - Mercopress must be short of news! Yes all this came out a few years ago- not a big secret. Who cares a damn anyway - as has been said - it just shows how thick that fat old corrupt Argie was!
Sep 04th, 2017 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If anyone could be in any doubt as to the extent the Argentines have misjudged and continue to misjudge the UK position on the Falkland Islands, let their minds be set at rest. No wonder there can be no meeting of the minds when the Argentines believe that sovereignty is so trivial it can be traded away for a world cup vote.
Sep 04th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +2LOl....you just cant make this shit up....ONLY a brain dead Argy would admit to such horse hit...!
Sep 04th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Comment removed by the editor.
Sep 05th, 2017 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1Sassy,Topher, Cloon ( Clown ), Hepetitus just go away in short jerky movements,you have been saying that for years, you will not be alive to see the FALKLANDS being governed by Argentina it will never be so.
Sep 05th, 2017 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse +2A very good reason not to negotiate.
Sep 05th, 2017 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse +2Considering the crooks and kleptocrats involved in the World Cup, no-one in their right mind would want anything to do with it.
Next Spain will be offering to vote for us in Eurovision in return for UK selling out Gibraltar as long as Tony Blair gets out his guitar and performs with Hain the Vain on the spoons with a song entitled 'Fake sun tan blues.'
Sep 05th, 2017 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You can't negotiate away a country's freedom on the basis of getting the world cup. I bet fatguts would stipulate none of the people born on the Islands should be part of the negotiations on their future. Was he awarded a medal by Argentina for suggesting this?
Malvinas never belonged to UK:
Sep 06th, 2017 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -3http://mrecic.gov.ar/userfiles/alegato_ruda_eng.pdf
Malvinense. There are enough mistruths on the first page to discount this rubbish.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +1HughJuanCoeurs: Try page 15.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Malvi
Sep 06th, 2017 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've just looked at page 15 and guess what - there's no mention whatsoever of the Falkland Islands just some mythical place just up from Narnia and around the bend from Atlantis.
Do you think that Argentina should apologise to the Falkland Islanders and the British people for all the death and destruction caused by the 1982 invasion seeing as it is within living memory and not 200 years ago.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 06th, 2017 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Malvinas never belonged to UK”
According two absolutely discredited sources. If this is untrue then you will be able to point to a source(s) of international law that supports their claims. I’m waiting, as I haven’t seen any since the whining started in 1833.
darragh: I have sympathy for the islanders even if you do not believe it. I think if they someday join the rest of the country they can help us grow and we can help them.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe an islander will ever become President of Argentina.
With regard to your question: the UK should apologize for starting the war in the Georgian islands.
Colonial Governor Rex Hunt lied saying that Argentina was invading the islands. Mr. Constantino Davidoff had obtained British permission to dismantle the old whaling factories.
Rex Hunt sent the Endurance ship to evict them.
They left no choice to Argentina to defend the workers, the rest is known history.
Terence: Start conversations with Argentina to solve the conflict and thus have productive relations.
“the UK should apologize for starting the war in the Georgian islands.”
Sep 06th, 2017 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are you talking about?
Sorry Demon Tree, Georgias islands.
Sep 06th, 2017 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I worked that out, but how did we supposedly start the war there?
Sep 06th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2“Mr. Constantino Davidoff had obtained British permission” If this were true, then it begs question, where’s the evidence?
Argentina refused to respond to the UK on two occasions prior to 1833. Then acted unilaterally to usurp the Islands over prior UK claims. When the UK reciprocates in exactly the same manner, suddenly the aggressor tries to play the victim. The UK cannot discuss sovereignty, since she is barred under the UN Charter s.73 and 103. She has for filled all her obligations under the Charter and so there is nothing to discuss. As Argentina’s claims are clearly illegal under international law.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse -1I am now totally convinced that you are utterly and totally “doolally”(dictionary “deranged or feeble-minded”). From where do you get all your false information and ideas?
@Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“and we can help them.”
What help could Argentina give the Islanders, that they:
a) Cannot provide for themselves already?
b) Are not provided for by the UK already?.
Do you have any idea of the concept of incentive?
We are no longer in the 1960s/1970s prior to the communications agreement.
You might (?)have noticed that circumstances and the economy have dramatically changed on the Falkland Islands since those days.
“Maybe an islander will ever become President of Argentina.”
Maybe an Islander will be able to serve as one of the top politicians in the Falkland Islands Government?
Maybe Islanders will be able to send a government representative to London?
Has a member of the Welsh Argentine community in Patagonia ever become President of Argentina?
You have absolutely NO concept of nationhood at all do you!
“I think if they someday join the rest of the country they can help us grow.”
They can help you grow already. If the mythical Malvinas claim was dropped, your people could be welcome in the Islands and get jobs they can't get in Argentina. Their income would directly benefit Argentina.
That means simply, Argentina gets money from the Falkland's surplus.
Also if the claim was dropped, your country could supply £millions of goods and services to the Islands for your country's financial benefit.
Malvi
Sep 07th, 2017 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still not answering the question - “Do you think that Argentina should apologise to the Falkland Islanders and the British people for all the death and destruction caused by the 1982 invasion seeing as it is within living memory and not 200 years ago”.
I've asked you this question many times and you never answer. Clearly you are a moral coward who will not admit to what you obviously believe i.e. that Argentina has nothing to apologise for.
If you had genuine sympathy for the Falkland Islanders you would stand alongside them in resisting Argentina's colonial ambitions.
The UK has nothing to apologise for about South Georgia as it was occupied by Argentine military forces the day after the Falkland Islands were occupied by the imperialist Argentine invading forces and that is assuming that Operation Azul did not go ahead as planned although it seems likely that it did go ahead so what is there for the UK to apologise for? There would have been no fighting on South Georgia if Argentine imperialist aggression had not taken place.
darragh:
Sep 07th, 2017 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The war was initiated by the United Kingdom in the South Georgia islands. Rex Hunt sent to the Endurance ship with Royal Marines to evict the workers working at the old whaling station. This was not necessary. Any misunderstanding could be solved between the Foreign Ministries of both countries.
Argentina had no choice. If he let the Royal Marines evict the workers, then he would be recognizing British sovereignty not only in South Georgia but also in the Malvinas.
In relation to his question: Why should Argentina apologize to the aggressor who usurped part of its territory?
“Viscount Palmerston replied on 8 January 1834 contending that the rights of Great Britain “were based on the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the said Islands”, arguments which
Moreno rejected on 29 December 1834”
We know as well as you, if you are intellectually honest, that these facts are false, Britain did not discover the islands and was not the first occupant either. He seized all the islands, so why should Argentina apologize?
“If he let the Royal Marines evict the workers, then he would be recognizing British sovereignty not only in South Georgia but also in the Malvinas.”
Sep 07th, 2017 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Why so? Argentina let Britain evict its garrison from Port Louis in 1833 with just a diplomatic complaint, and still doesn't recognise British sovereignty today. Why couldn't they do the same for the much lesser issue of the scrap metal workers?
Also, assuming you are right and they were there innocently, with permission: if Britain gave permission then Britain can revoke it and expel them, and if Britain doesn't have a right to do that then what does it matter whether they had permission to be there or not?
I don't understand why Argentina even claims South Georgia and those other islands. AFAIK they never belonged to Spain, and Argentina never had a settlement there or used them in any way, and didn't claim them until well after Britain had.
M
Sep 07th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I have been reading several of the accounts of the S.Georgia affair. They all seem to agree that the landing of Argentine personnel was illegal and a prelude to the invasion of the Falklands.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_South_Georgia
Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Davidoff had obtained British permission” If this were true, then it begs question, where’s the evidence?
Typical, Argentine viveza criolla when challenged to meet your burden of proof; commit the fallacy of moving the ‘goal-posts’. This is deliberate dishonesty. So thank for confirming there is no evidence to support your claim vis a vis S.Georgia. Therefore, you are revealed as a liar.
@Terence Hill
Sep 07th, 2017 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the closest thing I could find:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8599404.stm
It says Davidoff complied with all the formalities and that his claims were confirmed by the Franks Committee report.
Not sure how accurate the article is in general; I haven't seen any other sources claim that the workers were detained, just that Argentina responded to Britain sending a ship by sending their own invasion force. And obviously the Junta must have been planning the war before any of this occurred, and the fighting in South Georgia happened after the fall of Stanley.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Palmerston replied “…that the rights of Great Britain “were based on the original discovery and subsequent occupation of the said Islands” It’s factually correct, but their interpretation is not contingent on Argentine acceptance. As its rights are accepted by the international community at the time. While Argentina is specifically barred from any claim under two publicly proclaimed Anglo-Spanish treaties. While the UK’s entitlements are specifically recognized by Spain under the Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Nootka.
Davidoff was not approved to attempt the second usurpation. “The Argentine intervention had begun on 19 March, when a group of civilian scrap metal workers illegally arrived at Leith Harbour on board the transport ship ARA Bahía Buen Suceso and raised the Argentine flag. The scrap workers had been infiltrated by Argentine marines posing as civilian scientists.”.[1][2]
1. “infiltrated on board, pretending to be scientists, were members of an Argentine naval special forces unit” Nick van der Bijl, Nine Battles to Stanley, London, Leo Cooper P.8 as reported in Lawrence Freedman, The Official History of the Falklands Camapign: Vol I The Origins of the Falklands War
2. Jump up ^ “Bahia Buen Suceso set sail for South Georgia on 11 March carrying Argentine Marines” Rowland White, Vulcan 607, London, Bantam Press, p30.
@Malvinense
Sep 07th, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Britain did not discover the islands and was not the first occupant either.”
So are you saying that Argentina instead, discovered the islands and was the first to occupy them?
It is not intellectual dishonesty to say that Bougainville would have not known about the Falkland Islands had he not noticed them on a British map.
So the British must have been sailing around the Islands in close proximity, to make the map, pre-1764.
It is also not intellectually dishonest to say that when Britain landed in Port Egmont, they were unaware of the French settlement. and it was not a significant time after i.e. 10, 20 , 50 years.
It is also not intellectually dishonest to presume that had the King of Spain not restored Port Egmont and West Falkland to the British, then it is likely that Britain would have won the ensuing war and then kicked Spain out of the Falkland Islands altogether.
Argentina's stupidity in 1982 was not to observe UN binding resolution 502 and withdraw from the Islands, in which case the British forces would have had to reciprocate.
Argentina therefore choose instead to get kicked out.
The British settlement may be pre-dated by the French settlement by one year, but no Argentine/United Provinces/Buenos Aires Government settlement pre-dated the British settlement .
You may have noticed that France is not claiming the Falkland Islands, Argentina is, and Argentina's attempt to settle the Islands (by force) in 1982 was number 4, not number 1.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 07th, 2017 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0South Georgia had always been British by right of first discovery and occupation. Spain nor any other country could justify a claim.
“Captain Cook claimed South Georgia for Britain on 17 January 1775. His journal states: “I landed at three different places, displayed our colours, and took possession of the country in his majesty's name, under a discharge of small arms”. He named the island itself after George III, and named the bay where he landed Possession Bay. Cook wasthe first to sight the South Sandwich Islands, on 31 January 1775. The South Shetlands were claimed for Britain byEdward Bransfield in 1820, and George Powell claimed the South Orkneys for Britain in 1821.
Getting it right: the real history of theFalklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
@ Demon Tree:
Sep 08th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1These are two completely different situations. In 1833 it was impossible to confront an imperial power like Great Britain. Argentina was a newborn nation. In 1982, after nearly 150 years of British occupation permitting forcible eviction, would be the definitive recognition of British sovereignty in the area.
As for his second question: it is true that the United Kingdom could revoke the permit and that is precisely what Constantino Davidoff says, with a simple call from the British embassy he would withdraw his men.
In contrast, Rex Hunt, informed London of an Argentine invasion which caused great headlines in the British press.
San Pedro Island (South Georgia) and its adjacent ones were discovered by the crew of the Spanish ship “León” between June 28 and 29, 1756, who located them perfectly in latitude and longitude. The main island was baptized and registered cartographically with that name, because the day 29 of June in which it was explored, corresponded to the religious festival of San Pedro. Argentina, is the direct heir of the Spanish titles in the region.
The first occupation and definitive installation in the island San Pedro and its adjacent ones, was not realized until the 16 of November of 1904, when the Argentine Company of Fishing S.A. (of Ernesto Tornquist and other Argentine capitals) settled permanently in Grytviken under Argentine laws and under its flag, arriving at that uninhabited island with two sailboats and a steam whale coming from Buenos Aires and enrolled in that port; to which later twenty ships would be added pertaining to that current Argentine population.
Davidoff: “The culprits of the Malvinas War are Rex Hunt and the Falkland Islands Company”
http://www.patagonianexo.com.ar/v2/davidoff-los-culpables-de-la-guerra-de-malvinas-son-rex-hunt-y-la-falkland-islands-company/
@Malvinense
Sep 08th, 2017 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1So the real difference between 1833 and 1982 was whether Argentina felt strong enough to take military action against the UK? That is what I thought.
Here is the BBC story about the incident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/19/newsid_2543000/2543639.stm
It says “The group has been asked to leave immediately and seek British permission to work on the island.” Remember that there had been earlier stunts by private individuals such as the group who hijacked an airliner and landed on Stanley racecourse. The British authorities may well have suspected this was something similar.
If they had left when they were asked to then the incident would have been resolved, and they could have sorted out the issue of permits afterwards and perhaps allowed the workers back on the island. Maybe Rex Hunt would have appeared paranoid for saying it was an Argentine invasion. However, since in reality Argentina did invade two weeks later, everyone thinks he was right.
A diplomatic solution wouldn't suit the Junta as they wanted a war to distract from their economic failures. Davidoff may blame Rex Hunt and the FIC, but I have never heard Galtieri or the other leaders do so, and they should know. I think the UK government was negligent not to send ships down there as a warning after Argentina broke off negotiations, but they were clearly not prepared for the war.
Wikipedia says South Georgia was first discovered by la Roché in 1675, and surveyed by Sir Edmund Halley in Jan 1700, but wasn't claimed by anyone until James Cook in 1775. Spain did not claim the islands because they were on the Portuguese side of the line according to the Treaty of Tordesillas.
So an Argentine company set up a commercial settlement in 1904, but Argentina didn't claim the islands until 1927? Did they claim them on that basis or some other? I think it is interesting that Argentina brings up the Treaty of Tordesillas with respect to the Falklands but ignores it here.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 08th, 2017 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“In 1833 it was impossible to confront an imperial power like Great Britain.” Especially without any ‘colour of right’ or scintilla of international law to rely on.
“The present Argentine claim to South Georgia is based on the whaling activities of the “Compafiia Argentina de Pesci” (known as “Pesci”), but it is severely compromised by the fact that “Pesca” accepted British sovereignty, as witnessed by two leases to lands on South Georgia signed by the company. The first lease, for land at Grytviken, was signed on 16 November 1904, ran from 1 January 1906 and was eventually extended to 1960; the second, for a site at Jason Harbour, was signed at the British Consulate in Buenos Aires on 22 July 1909 by the president of “Pesca”, Hermann H. Schlieper, and was later signed by Governor Allardyce and the Falklands Colonial Secretary W. A. Thompson, representing the British Crown. When it expired in 1927, the lease reverted to the Falkland Islands Government.”
Getting it right: the real history of theFalklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Malvi
Sep 09th, 2017 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You say “Why should Argentina apologize to the aggressor who usurped part of its territory?”
Really? Are you being serious?
I’m not talking about something that did or didn’t happen 200 years ago back when the earth was young but something that happened well within living memory. Argentina invaded a group of practically undefended islands which were no threat whatsoever to Argentina. As a result of this invasion over 250 British servicemen and civilian crewmen and 3 Falkland Islanders died and many were horribly mutilated and will bear their scars both physical and mental for the rest of their lives not to mention the tens of millions of pounds of equipment and materiel and the indiscriminate dumping of thousands of landmines which are a danger to this day and you excuse this brutality by reference to a note by the long dead Lord Palmerston!!!
Yet you think there is nothing to apologise for!!
In the past I’ve accused you of being a moral coward for failing to answer my question about Argentina apologising for the death and destruction it caused and now by finally answering it you demonstrate that you are not a moral coward you are much worse than that as you clearly believe that it is perfectly acceptable for these soldiers and civilians to be sacrificed on the altar of Argentine aggrandisement and imperialism.
Malvinense 1833
Sep 09th, 2017 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“British occupation permitting forcible eviction, would be the definitive recognition of British sovereignty in the area.”
You’ve got it Pontiac, that is amongst five other planks of international law that the UK can rely on. Whilst Argentina has no claim that is recognizable under international law.
“...Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest
as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: 'Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.'10. That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...”
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Sharon Korman
Malvinense 1883
Sep 10th, 2017 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Maybe an islander will ever (sic) become President of Argentina.”
It is time for you to face up to some of what for you will no doubt find to be bitter truth.
No-one who is currently not Argentine has any desire to acquire that nationality. No-one. I'm not just saying Falkland Islanders, who of course have more reason than most to despise the Argentines. I mean no-one anywhere. Just look at your country's history, if you can actually find someone in your country who a) knows the history of the country and b) is prepared to render it accurately. It is a country of immense wealth which its citizens have consistently raped by practicing corruption on a scale hardly achieved by any other country. Within living memory you have had governments that were willing to exert unbelievable cruelties on their own citizens. That has happened in the past and we have no reason to believe that it is unlikely to happen again in the future. Who would of their own free will become citizens of such a country ?
Can you not see that making the remark that a Falkland Islander might at some time in the future become President of Argentina shows a total disconnect with reality. Face it - for the last 200 years Argentina has at best been a third rate nation, struggling to remain third rate. Understand that and it will save you from making such embarrassing statements in future.
@ Pontefractious: You are looking at the past and the present. I am looking to the future. A future of hope. Thank you very much for your respectful opinion.
Sep 11th, 2017 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ darragh: You say that the usurpation of the Argentine territory is something of the past. The 1982 war and the current conflict is a consequence of that past. This is also true in personal life, often our present is a consequence of that past. One question is you islander?
@ Demon Tree:
Davidoff: “I called the British Embassy and was anxious not to create problems and asked what other types of items I should complete in order to travel and leave. As I was on the business shipping companies , I know that the trips that are are made by boat are very expensive and if you fail with a little piece of paper can result a loss of two hundred thousand dollars come back to port ”
“If I had called the embassy, as I later spoke on the phone, and Governor Rex Hunt would have told me that I had to carry a passport, well, I did not go out, because I can not carry a passport, Argentina was under a treaty signed between the two countries 1971 that among other things said that he was not traveling under a passport or a cedula, he was traveling under the White Certificate, which was where my people traveled, but Governor Hunt was already waging war.
There were never any military personnel, and I have a certificate from the International Red Cross that was received by my people in Ascension as a war refugee, with a name, nationality, specialty, and there was not a single soldier.
The people of the British Antarctic Service say that there were military personnel ”.
@Malvi
Sep 12th, 2017 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Darragh isn't from the Falklands, I believe he's Irish.
I can easily believe Davidoff did everything correctly as far as he knew and was an innocent victim of the rising tensions. But he doesn't have any inside information on what Rex Hunt believed at the time, to know if he was acting reasonably, or mistaken, or lying. (And he doesn't have any inside information on what his own government was planning either.) The BBC article I linked above does not claim marines were among the workers, it just says the events are seen as a provocative step and the group was asked to leave.
Davidoff chartered a ship from the Argentine navy to transport his workers, and I read somewhere that the workers had purchased military surplus Antarctic clothing for the trip as that was all that was available. Add to this that they turned up without reporting to any of the authorities on the island and raised their flag, and you can understand why the BAS would be suspicious and report it to the governor.
I found another account here:
http://www.naval-history.net/F14-1982_Invasion_of_South_Georgia.htm
“As negotiations continued between London and Buenos Aires, ”Endurance“ took no steps to remove the scrap men, but the Argentines had already ordered icebreaker ”Bahia Paraiso“ to sail to protect them, and by Thursday 25th, she had arrived at Leith. Approximately one hundred Marines went ashore under the command of Lt Cdr of Marines Alfredo Astiz and the icebreaker used her Alouette helicopter to shadow ”Endurance“ for the next few days.”
Why couldn't they resolve the situation by negotiation when no one had used any force yet? Probably because the Junta didn't want to look weak by backing down and they believed they could easily take the islands without Britain responding militarily.
What was all that about cedulas and the White Certificate?
@ Demon Tree: Davidoff says he was asked for a passport to enter South Georgia. By the agreement of Communications of 1971 between Argentina and the United Kingdom the Argentineans could enter without passport to the islands. (temporary card)
Sep 12th, 2017 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Davidoff had obtained British permission to do his work.
He also says he is not stupid to travel to a place without having the papers in order, because that would report losing thousands of dollars.
Davidoff says that if the passport was needed, he simply would not have traveled.
He also says that Rex Hunt violated the 1971 agreement by requiring his workers to passport.
He says that his men tied a small Argentine flag to the rowing of a boat, that was immediately withdrawn by order of the members of the B.A.S.
Everything could be solved by simple telephone call for Argentina to remove the workers and the story would be another.
Wikipedia claims that Rex Hunt said the agreement on travel only covered the Falklands and not the dependencies such as the South Georgias. I found a copy of the agreement on the Argentine Embassy website, and it certainly does not clarify which islands are covered. I think this link should work:
Sep 12th, 2017 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://tratados.mrecic.gov.ar/tratado_archivo.php?tratados_id=14514&tipo=1&id=4837&caso=pdf
Wikipedia also says the Foreign Office offered to stamp temporary permissions rather than passports, but Argentina rejected this proposal. I don't know if there is evidence for this elsewhere.
(It seems surprising now how much cooperation there was back in the 70s, very different to today.)
If the workers had left when asked to that would have ended the matter, but some stayed on the island when their ship left. And since Argentina sent ARA Bahía Paraíso there, they could have taken the workers off and sorted out the rights and wrongs afterwards, and perhaps the UK government could have compensated Davidoff if he was given the wrong information by the British Embassy. Why do you think they didn't do this?
Malvi
Sep 13th, 2017 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet another mealy-mouthed and irrelavent reply from you.
You could just as easily say that the 1982 invasion was caused by the first protozoa in the primordial ocean in as much as we are all descended from it. Direct cause and effect are very rarely quantifiable and certainly not in the case of the Falkland Islands.
No matter how much whiffling and waffling you do Argentina cannot escape responsibility for its actions.
If Argentina can bear a grudge for nearly 200 years for something so trifling at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned (although not as far as the Falkland islanders are concerned as it is their lives and livelihoods we are talking about but then you regard them as being of no account anyway) which probably didn’t happen in the first place then that says more about the arrogance of Argentines in general than anything I could write.
The world would be in an even sorrier state than it is now if everyone wanted to set the world back by 200 years
You will probably say it is more to do with the ‘honour’ of Argentina but Argentina has demonstrated a singular lack of ‘honour’ throughout its history what with its invasions of other countries, ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples and endemic corruption and you certainly are not honourable yourself in your refusal to accept that Argentina should at the very least apologise for the death and destruction it has caused.
No, I am not an islander nor has it any relevance. Anybody with half a brain cell can see that Argentina was totally, completely and utterly responsible for the 1982 invasion yet doesn’t have the ‘honour’ nor courage to admit it or apologise for its imperialist intent.
@Darragh
Sep 13th, 2017 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina has demonstrated a singular lack of ‘honour’ throughout its history what with its invasions of other countries, ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples and endemic corruption”
I dunno, I don't think any of those things are particularly unusual, unfortunately. There's hardly a country in the world that hasn't dabbled in at least one of them. Britain has invaded more countries than I can count.
Do you also think the US and UK should apologise for the Iraq war? How about other wars still in living memory?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!